DOCSLIB.ORG

Free Will and Human Nature: Should We Be Worried?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Free Will and Human Nature: Should We Be Worried? Free Will and Human Nature: Should We Be Worried? Evolutionary Psychology has a bigger problem with free will than it acknowledges, argues Brian Garvey Edward O. Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, published in 1975, dealt with group behaviour within species—co-operation, competition, hierarchy formation, and so forth.[1] It focused principally on eusocial insects, such as ants, and primates, and told a story about how this behaviour evolves from a gene’s eye view, of the kind familiar from the work of Richard Dawkins, Robert Trivers, and others. This might have caused barely a flicker of controversy had it not been for the final chapter, wherein Wilson speculated on potential implications of his theories for humans. Although he was rather vague and circumspect, strident objections erupted almost immediately. And thus began the human nature wars, which have raged ever since.[2] One of the most frequent complaints against Wilson was that he gave people excuses for bad behaviour. Stephen Rose, reviewing Wilson’s On Human Nature,[3] wrote: […] for Wilson human males have a genetic tendency towards polygyny, females towards constancy (don’t blame your mates for sleeping around, ladies, it’s not their fault they are genetically programmed). This accusation has subsequently been levelled against the schools of thought that may be said to have taken their cue from Wilson—notably Evolutionary Psychology. But for the accusation to stick, it’s not enough that Wilson, or the Evolutionary Psychologists, give evolutionary explanations for certain types of behaviour. They can only be giving excuses to (for example) men who are serial philanderers if their theories imply that men find it very difficult or impossible to stop themselves from serially philandering. Evolutionary Psychologists are also frequently accused of presenting speculation as if it were fact. If we put this together with the previous complaint, we get: Evolutionary Psychologists are giving us, without good evidence, a story that gives excuses to bad people. On the other hand, if their theories are well-founded after all, there is a different reason to be worried. We generally like to feel that people can be held responsible for their actions, and indeed that we are in control of ourselves. It would be bad news if a well-founded scientific theory told us that they can’t, or that we aren’t, or at least that we are to a significantly lesser extent than we had thought. So does Evolutionary Psychology really imply that we have less control over our own actions than we might have thought? Janet Radcliffe-Richards argues that it doesn’t, and argues this by appealing tocompatibilism about free will.[4] Compatibilism is the doctrine that free will can still exist, and that we can still be in control of our actions and morally responsible, even if determinism is true. It is not part of my purpose here to decide whether compatibilism is true or not. Rather, what I argue is: (1) even if compatibilism is true we still might not have free will; (2) there are certain things that, on either compatibilist or incompatibilist views, would count as reductions or negations of free will; and (3) Evolutionary Psychology, at least in its most prominent version, makes claims that if true would mean that we have significantly less self-control and responsibility than we might have thought. The first point is quite easy to establish. Compatibilism just means that free will, self- control and responsibility are compatible with determinism. It does not imply that in every possible deterministic scenario we have free will, self-control and responsibility. Compatibilists would not dispute that if, for example, our behaviour was disconnected from our brains and controlled by some diabolical genius, we would not have free will. Hence, in order to establish that we have free will, it is not enough to establish the truth of compatibilism. We would also have to establish that whatever conditions are needed for free will are actually met. This need becomes particularly pressing when we are faced with new considerations that seem, on the face of it, to be relevant—as is the case with Evolutionary Psychology. I do not attempt here to provide a full account of the conditions for free will. Rather, I am attempting the more modest task of showing some of the conditions that, if met, would mean that we have less of it than we might have thought. On the second point, everyone, compatibilist or incompatibilist, agrees that being tied up or imprisoned reduces or negates our freedom. Some might quibble about whether these conditions really affect our free will; they might argue that we can continue to will things just as we could before. But if the really important issues are responsibility and self- control, then most people would agree that being tied up or imprisoned means that there are things that we can’t do, meaning that we can’t be responsible for not doing them or have control over whether we do them. But there are other kinds of conditions that, again I think most people would agree, have a similar effect. A person in the grip of a severe addiction or phobia will—and this seems to be part of the definition of these conditions—find it extremely hard to do certain things or stop themselves from doing certain things. One might insist that they are still able to do the things, or to refrain from doing the things, and that their condition only makes it harder, not impossible. But if we see things in slightly less all-or-nothing terms, it seems reasonable to say that a person with an addiction or a phobia ought to be cut some slack, because they are less able to control certain actions and should be held less responsible for those actions. One might, consistent with this, hold that an addicted person is to blame for becoming addicted in the first place. I won’t try to adjudicate that issue here. What if it turned out, though, that there are people who have dispositions that develop in a way that’s outside their control, and that are similar enough to addictions that they can be said to curtail responsibility and self-control in the same way? This possibility, I suggest, may justify the worry about Evolutionary Psychology having negative implications for responsibility and self-control. Finally, on the third point, a defining feature of the most prominent school of Evolutionary Psychology—the school represented by Cosmides and Tooby, Steven Pinker, David Buss and others[5]—is the massive modularity thesis. This is the thesis that the mind is wholly or at least very largely composed of special-purpose mechanisms that operate more-or-less autonomously and automatically, as opposed to being a general-purpose reasoning or learning machine. In support of this view, they appeal to (i) examples of divisions of function—for example, it is possible to lose the ability to recognise faces while remaining otherwise visually unimpaired; (ii) an analogy with physical anatomy, with the division of the body into well-defined and separate organs; and (iii) a general evolutionary argument that natural selection builds solutions to specific problems as they arise and doesn’t plan for the future. The important point here is that modules produce their outputs automatically and in a way that’s oblivious to other information that the mind possesses. This is why optical illusions persist even when we know they are illusions: the visual system produces outputs automatically and doesn’t have access to all the information that other parts of the mind has. Evolutionary Psychologists argue that motivations similarly arise automatically and without regard for other relevant information. For example, Donald Symons says: Human behavior is flexible, of course, but this flexibility is of means, not ends, and the basic experiential goals that motivate human behavior are both inflexible and specific.[6] On this account, then, we have desires that arise automatically, and that are inflexible in the sense that they continue to be motivators even if our better judgement tells us not to follow their promptings. This seems to make us helpless before them in the same way that an addict is helpless before their addiction. It is not impossible to resist the desires, but their persistent nature will make it hard for us to resist them, and consequently reduce our responsibility and self-control in just the way that addictions and phobias do. Evolutionary Psychologists sometimes try to allay such concerns by arguing that we have an override mechanism. But they give no explanation of how such a mechanism would work, or indeed of how it fits with their massive modularity view of the mind. In the absence of such an explanation, there are two alternatives facing Evolutionary Psychology: either they have an account of motivation that undermines the idea that we have full responsibility and self-control, or they have a seriously incomplete account of motivation, and hence of the mind generally. Brian Garvey is Lecturer in Philosophy at Lancaster University. You can read the full argument in his ‘Free Will, Compatibilism and the Human Nature Wars: Should We Be Worried?’, in Kathryn Plaisance and Thomas Reydon (eds), Philosophy of Behavioral Biology (Springer, 2012). The full text of the penultimate draft of this paper can be found here. [1] E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology (Belknap, 1975). [2] For a lively account of the human nature wars, which shows just how heated they got, see U. Segerstråle, Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate (Oxford University Press, 2000). [3] S. Rose, ‘Pre-Copernican Sociobiology?’, New Scientist, 1978, 80, pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Balanced Biosocial Theory for the Social Sciences
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2004 Balanced biosocial theory for the social sciences Michael A Restivo University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Restivo, Michael A, "Balanced biosocial theory for the social sciences" (2004). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 1635. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/5jp5-vy39 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BALANCED BIOSOCIAL THEORY FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Michael A. Restivo Bachelor of Arts IPIoridkijSjlarrhcIJiuAHsrsity 2001 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillm ent ofdœnxpnnnnenkfbrthe Master of Arts Degree in Sociology Departm ent of Sociology College of Liberal Arts Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas M ay 2004 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1422154 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Politics and Law
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 38 Number 4 Summer 2004 pp.1129-1248 Summer 2004 Evolution, Politics and Law Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, Evolution, Politics and Law, 38 Val. U. L. Rev. 1129 (2004). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol38/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Kuklin: Evolution, Politics and Law VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 38 SUMMER 2004 NUMBER 4 Article EVOLUTION, POLITICS AND LAW Bailey Kuklin* I. Introduction ............................................... 1129 II. Evolutionary Theory ................................. 1134 III. The Normative Implications of Biological Dispositions ......................... 1140 A . Fact and Value .................................... 1141 B. Biological Determinism ..................... 1163 C. Future Fitness ..................................... 1183 D. Cultural N orm s .................................. 1188 IV. The Politics of Sociobiology ..................... 1196 A. Political Orientations ......................... 1205 B. Political Tactics ................................... 1232 V . C onclusion ................................................. 1248 I. INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Behavior and Satisfaction in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Relationships
    Sexual Behavior and Satisfaction in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Relationships Taylor Orth Department of Sociology, Stanford University Author Contact Information: 450 Serra Mall Building 120, Room 30D Stanford, CA 94305 [email protected] (281) 772-0155 1 Sexual Behavior and Satisfaction in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Relationships Abstract: Among both academics and the lay public remains a widespread and taken- for-granted belief that male and female sexuality are fundamentally different and that men and women in sexual relationships compromise on such differences. More recently, however, social scientists have begun to question the extent to which gender gaps in sexual desire may be socially rather than biologically determined. Because collecting accurate and representative data on sexual behavior within relationships is often challenging, very little empirical evidence has been available to scientifically disentangle these competing perspectives. This study evaluates variation in the sexual behavior and satisfaction of same-sex and different-sex couples through an analysis of two nationally representative American surveys, How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) and The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Findings demonstrate that women in same-sex relationships have sex less often than other couple pairings. Men in same-sex relationships report significantly lower sexual satisfaction and higher rates of non-monogamy relative to other couples, even after controlling for relevant factors. Overall, the results from this study support the notion that sexual relationships function differently in the absence of a male or female partner, but present a less deterministic and more socially complex perspective than has traditionally been accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Department of Anthropology Rutgers University Explanation in Anthropology Robin Fox Syllabus and Readings Fall 2006 CALUSA F
    1 Department Of Anthropology Rutgers University Explanation In Anthropology Robin Fox Syllabus And Readings Fall 2006 CALUSA FELINE-HUMAN FIGURE - Cushing Expedition, Key Marco FL 1893 2 Anthropology 410 Explanation in Anthropology - Robin Fox Syllabus and readings. Fall 2006 (see course outline on anthro. website) BIO 302 2-3 Challenge refers to Robin Fox, The Challenge of Anthropology, Transaction 1994. (available at Douglass bookstore or Amazon – cheaper usually.) Search refers to Robin Fox, The Search for Society, Rutgers U.P. 1989. (copies will be distributed) “reprint” means I have a reprint of the item or an electronic version (“disk”) This is a 400-level seminar, and your active participation is essential. A background in anthropology is not required; in fact a diversity of backgrounds is an advantage for the course. We shall approach the issue of “explanation” in anthropology, not in an abstract way, but with a series of “case histories” from the instructor’s work. Each week everyone will read one or two chapters from Search or Challenge, or a chapter or article on disk, as indicated. In addition, individuals will prepare brief reports from the “other readings” which are expansions, related topics, criticisms, or downright disagreements with the position taken in the general reading. You should prepare a brief write-up of each of the “other readings” that you tackle, and these will count towards the grade. A short term paper on one of the topics or a related topic will complete the assignment. For this you should use all the “other readings” on the topic, and others that will be discussed individually.
    [Show full text]
  • States in Mind Anthony C. Lopez, Rose Mcdermott, and Michael
    States in Mind States in Mind Anthony C. Lopez, Rose McDermott, and Evolution, Coalitional Psychology, and Michael Bang International Politics Petersen One of the most com- monly studied puzzles in international politics is the recurrence of coalitional competition and aggression between political groups such as states. Indeed, this pattern constitutes an enduring and central feature of all politics. Yet de- spite the tragic endurance of this leitmotif throughout history, its manifestation varies through time and space. Some wars are fought for honor or revenge, whereas others are ignited for mere opportunism or as a consequence of vari- ous misperceptions, whatever their source. We argue that evolutionary theory provides a theoretical framework that can explain both the stubborn endur- ance and dynamic diversity of coalitional behavior. Debate on the relevance of “human nature” and biological factors for explaining political behavior is not new.1 Yet the comprehensive value of evo- lutionary theory for explaining important aspects of international politics has not been adequately explicated. As we discuss below, this has in part been a consequence of general skepticism about the validity and scope of evolution- ary theory for explaining political behavior. We argue, however, that evolu- tionary psychology can generate falsiªable ex ante predictions that are of central interest to the study of international politics, and we offer several hy- potheses derived from this model to illustrate the depth of this approach. Evo- lutionary psychologists have already generated a large body of work that suggests that the human brain contains webs of psychological mechanisms, or adaptations, each designed to operate in domains relevant to modern politics, and which emerged as a product of natural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Psychology
    SN-05(153-196) 3/4/02 2:12 PM Page 153 CHAPTER 5 Evolutionary psychology esearchers committed to an evolutionary perspective Ron humanity were initially united in the face of wide- spread hostility to human sociobiology. However, in the 1980s, as the number of investigators using evolution to study human behaviour increased, subgroups began to emerge with different opinions on how best to proceed. One such subgroup was dominated by academic psycho- logists searching for the evolved psychological mechanisms that they envisaged underpinned any universal mental and behavioural characteristics of humanity. While the intellec- tual roots of some of these practitioners could be traced to human sociobiology, or to the study of animal behaviour, the majority were fresh recruits who sought to differentiate themselves from human sociobiology, and restyled them- selves as Darwinian or evolutionary psychologists. For Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two of the pioneers of this new discipline, evolutionary psychology owed little intellectual debt to Edward Wilson but did draw inspiration from the writings of Bill Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and George Williams. Tooby, a Harvard-trained anthropologist who had worked closely with Irven DeVore, and Cosmides, a psychologist also from Harvard, were brought by Donald Symons to Santa Barbara where they founded the first Center for Research in Evolutionary Psychology. SN-05(153-196) 3/4/02 2:12 PM Page 154 154 SENSE AND NONSENSE The ‘Santa Barbara school’1 were concerned that human sociobiologists and behavioural ecologists had neglected psychological adaptations: In the rush to apply evolutionary insights to a science of human behavior, many researchers have made a conceptual ‘wrong turn’, leaving a gap in the evolutionary approach that has limited its effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 75 Issue 2 SYMPOSIUM: Article 4 Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care? 2009 The aN tures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook. L. Rev. (2009). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol75/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. The Natures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin† One of the abiding lessons from postmodernism is that reason does not go all the way down.1 In the context of this symposium, one cannot deductively derive a universal morality from incontestible moral primitives,2 or practical reason alone.3 Instead, even reasoned moral systems must ultimately be grounded on intuition,4 a sense of justice. The question then † Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I wish to thank the presenters and participants of the Brooklyn Law School Symposium entitled “Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care?” and those at the Tenth SEAL Scholarship Conference. Further thanks go to Brooklyn Law School for supporting this project with a summer research stipend. 1 “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.” JEAN-FRANCOIS LYOTARD, THE POSTMODERN CONDITION: A REPORT ON KNOWLEDGE xxiv (Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi trans., 1984). “If modernity is viewed with Weberian optimism as the project of rationalisation of the life-world, an era of material progress, social emancipation and scientific innovation, the postmodern is derided as chaotic, catastrophic, nihilistic, the end of good order.” COSTAS DOUZINAS ET AL., POSTMODERN JURISPRUDENCE 16 (1991).
    [Show full text]
  • The Adaptive Nature of the Human Neurocognitive Architecture: an Alternative Model
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 11290–11294, September 1998 Evolution The adaptive nature of the human neurocognitive architecture: An alternative model PEGGY LA CERRA* AND ROGER BINGHAM†‡ *1333 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; and †Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 Communicated by George C. Williams, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, July 9, 1998 (received for review March 18, 1998) ABSTRACT The model of the human neurocognitive ar- providing support for the hypothesized domain-specific mech- chitecture proposed by evolutionary psychologists is based on anisms under investigation, the absence of a definitive analysis the presumption that the demands of hunter-gatherer life (i.e., a method that parses out the possible contributions of the generated a vast array of cognitive adaptations. Here we other postulated mechanisms, specific and general), makes present an alternative model. We argue that the problems such conclusions, at best, speculative. inherent in the biological markets of ancestral hominids and Within the theoretical framework of evolutionary psychol- their mammalian predecessors would have required an adap- ogy, the critical problem of the adaptive selection of behavior tively flexible, on-line information-processing system, and rests heavily on the integrative circuitry that is presumed to would have driven the evolution of a functionally plastic engage the appropriate domain-specific mechanism. Yet, like neural substrate, the neocortex, rather than a confederation the postulated domain-general mechanisms, this circuitry re- of evolutionarily prespecified social cognitive adaptations. In mains theoretically unconsidered and empirically unexplored alignment with recent neuroscientific evidence, we suggest within the paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychological Foundations of Culture Generation -Of Culture
    From: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology The Psychological Foundations of Culture generation -of culture J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, JOHNTOOBY AND LEDA COSMIDES 1992. New York: Oxford INTRODUCTION: THE UNITY OF SCIENCE One of the strengths of scientific inquiry is that it can progress with any mixture of empiri- cism, intuition, and formal theory that suits the convenience of the investigator. Many sci- ences develop for a time as exercises in description and empirical generalization. Only later do they acquire reasoned connectionswithin themselves and with other branches of knowl- edge. Many things were scientifically known of human anatomy and the motions ofthe plan- ets before they were scientifically explained. -GEORGE WILLIAMS, Adaptation and Natural Selection Disciplines such as astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, and biology have devel- oped a robust combination of logical coherence, causal description, explanatory power, and testability, and have become examples of how reliable and deeply satisfy- ing human knowledge can become. Their extraordinary florescence throughout this century has resulted in far more than just individual progress within each field. These disciplines are becoming integrated into an increasingly seamless system of intercon- nected knowledge and remain nominally separated more out of educational conve- nience and institutional inertia than because of any genuine ruptures in the underlying unity of the achieved knowledge. In fact, this development is only an acceleration of the process of conceptual unification that has been building in science since the Renaissance. For example, Galileo and Newton broke down the then rigid (and now forgotten) division between the celestial and the terrestrial-two domains that for- merly had been considered metaphysically separate-showing that the same processes and principles applied to both.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of August 1987 Precis of Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature Philip Kitcher University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California Patrick Bateson (Comment by) University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England Jon Beckwith (Comment by) Department of Microbiolgoy and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Irwin S. Bernstein (Comment by) Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA Patricia Smith Churchland (Comment by) Philosophy Department and Cognitive Science Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, FCaliforniaollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub See P nextart of page the forAnthr additionalopology authorsCommons Kitcher, Philip; Bateson, Patrick (Comment by); Beckwith, Jon (Comment by); Bernstein, Irwin S. (Comment by); Smith Churchland, Patricia (Comment by); Draper, Patricia (Comment by); Dupre, John (Comment by); Futterman, Andrew (Comment by); Ghiselin, Michael T. (Comment by); Harpending, Henry (Comment by); Johnston, Timothy D. (Comment by); Allen, Garland E. (Comment by); Lamb, Michael E. (Comment by); McGrew, W. C. (Comment by); Plotkin, H. C. (Comment by); Rosenberg, Alexander (Comment by); Saunders, Peter T. (Comment by); Ho, Mae-Wan (Comment by); Singer, Peter (Comment by); Smith, Eric Aiden (Comment by); Smith, Peter K. (Comment by); Sober, Elliot (Comment by); Stenseth, Nils C. (Comment by); and Symons, Donald (Comment by), "Precis of Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature" (1987). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 16. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Minds Explaining the New Science of Evolutionary Psychology
    Universal Minds Explaining the New Science of Evolutionary Psychology Leda Cosmides & John Tooby Co-Directors, Center for Evolutionary Psychology University of California, Santa Barbara DRAFT. Please do not cite or quote without authors’ permission Leda Cosmides & John Tooby, 2009 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Debauching the mind: Evolutionary psychology's past and present The Standard Social Science Model 2. BACK TO BASICS Principle 1. The brain is a physical system that functions as a computer Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg Principle 4. Neural circuits are specialized Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind 3. UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN OF ORGANISMS Common descent and adaptation Why does structure reflect function? Seeing organization Design evidence Nature and nurture: An adaptationist perspective “Innate” is not the opposite of “learned” Specialized or general-purpose? Present at birth? Co-determinism and the twin fallacies of biological determinism and environmental determinism. More nature means more nurture Fear of genes Evolutionary psychology is not behaviour genetics What heritability does not mean Evolutionary psychology focuses on universal architecture Ultimate versus proximate explanation Is evolutionary psychology politically suspect? 4. REASONING INSTINCTS: AN EXAMPLE FROM SOCIAL EXCHANGE 1 1. INTRODUCTION Debauching the mind: Evolutionary psychology's past and present In the final pages of the Origin of Species, after Darwin had presented the theory of evolution by natural selection, he made a bold prediction: "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation." More than a century later, a group of young scholars began to work out exactly how Darwin’s fundamental insights could be used as a foundation on which to build a more systematic, scientifically accurate psychology.
    [Show full text]
  • Varieties of Evolutionary Psychology David J. Buller
    Published in Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology (pp. 255-274), eds. Michael Ruse and David L. Hull (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Varieties of Evolutionary Psychology David J. Buller Introduction What is evolutionary psycholoGy? The answer to this question is complicated by the fact that the term “evolutionary psycholoGy” is commonly used in two distinct senses. In one sense, evolutionary psycholoGy is simply the study of human behavior and psycholoGy from an evolutionary perspective. In this sense, evolutionary psychology is a field of inquiry, a loose confederation of research programs that differ significantly in theoretical and methodoloGical commitments. These diverse research programs attempt to explain a wide variety of phenomena, ranging from foraging and birth spacing in traditional hunter-gatherer societies to encephalization (the progressive increase in brain size relative to body size in the human lineaGe) and the evolution of altruism and lanGuaGe. What unites these research proGrams is not a shared commitment to specific theories regarding the evolution of human behavior and psychology, but only a commitment to articulatinG questions about human behavior and psychology, and articulating answers to those questions, with conceptual and theoretical tools drawn from evolutionary theory. In this broad sense, evolutionary psycholoGy dates back to Darwin’s The Descent of Man (published in 1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (published in 1872). But, despite Darwin’s early efforts, there was relatively little concerted study of human 2 behavior and psychology from an evolutionary perspective until the latter half of the twentieth century, when several research programs emerged and attracted significant numbers of researchers (Laland and Brown 2002).
    [Show full text]